Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

Remember Rob gets to define what is substantive and what counts as evidence. It will help your communications with him to make this a part of your expectations.

Your statement simply has no connection with what I have said in this thread. Your comment is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the arguments by making me the issue. How annoying.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

Your statement simply has no connection with what I have said in this thread. Your comment is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the arguments by making me the issue. How annoying.

My statement has everything to do with the way you interact and the way you present your studies. You insist on interpreting Mormonism through your evangelical prism then correcting the Mormons about their own beliefs. pointing out your blithe hand-waiving dismissal of anyone who dares correct your interpretation of their own beliefs is not a diversion but my pointing out that the emperor is making up his own rules. Kind of like Calvin Ball.

That is a very callous approach to understanding others beliefs.

Talk about annoying.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

My statement has everything to do with the way you interact and the way you present your studies. You insist on interpreting Mormonism through your evangelical prism then correcting the Mormons about their own beliefs.

False. I never correct a Mormon about his or her own beliefs. That is, I never tell a Mormon what he or she believes. I'd issue a CFR, but my CFRs sometimes get ignored, contrary to forum rules, and this one's hardly worth the trouble.

pointing out your blithe hand-waiving dismissal of anyone who dares correct your interpretation of their own beliefs is not a diversion but my pointing out that the emperor is making up his own rules.

You call this "blithe hand-waiving dismissal"?

Kind of like Calvin Ball.

Ah, Calvinball. This is funny, coming from a Mormon. Many Mormons change the rules midstream in discussion to avoid accountability for their doctrines and claims. "That's not official doctrine--our official doctrine is only what is in the standard works...only what is taught in general conference...only what is taught by the living prophet...only what is in the correlated manuals...we don't have official doctrine because we are all about personal revelation not dogmas and creeds...."

If you can find an instance in this thread of me trying to change the rules in the midst of the discussion, let's have it.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[wenglund]

[deleted continued nausiating lexiacal nitpicking that detracts from the real issues]

Okay, another subjectivist for whom evidence and reason do not matter. Noted.

Nothing I said could in any rational way be interpreted as suggesting that I don't think reason matters. I do. In fact, it is reasoning that compels me to prefer my own interpretation of the passages in question over your un-inspired and superficial interpretation.

Using your own hermeneutical method, it would appear that what you mean is that to your subjective taste my observation about ad hominem fallacies felt whiny and irrelevant to you. It's hard, though, to know what to make of your appeal to reason after you have just thrown it under the subjectivist bus.

It is hard to take you seriously when you jump to such demonstrably errant conclusions.

As to the point I made, when you dismiss an interpretation because of who presents it (in this case, moi), you are committing the ad hominem fallacy.

I didn't dismiss your interpretation. I tolerated it, and even said "to each their own," thereby implicitly acknowledging that your interpretation is, to an extent, reasonable. Please pay better attention and stop cluttering your responses to me with all sorts of knee-jerk mis-reads and false accusations (speaking of fallacies), and spend more time dealing with real issues.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

Not sure if you all saw this, but it is a great article, and Mr Bowman would do well to read it.

This guy has a much better understanding of our theology than Bowman and just plain "gets" it, even though he is not a member, especially on the whole question of "spirit matter". He gets just enough of the details wrong so that we know he is a non-member, but the central core of his understanding is right on the money.

http://www.firstthin...sed-with-christ

How come this guy gets it, and after all his study, Rob still doesn't?

It just shows how IRR-elevant that organization is.

Stephen Webb is a remarkably talented theologian, philosopher, and scholar. He pays close attention to historical context and he takes multiple religious traditions seriously as interlocutors on their own terms in his search for truth in Christianity. His is a search for understanding, to draw close to God and knowledge about God. This doesn't mean that Webb simply says Mormons can believe whatever they want, and it doesn't mean he agrees with everything Mormons have offered. To the contrary, he offers suggestions about how he believes LDS theology could be made more consistent with his understanding of scripture. I loved his book and recommend it to any person interested in Christian theology on the Trinity.

By comparison, Bowman is, essentially, a hack trying to pigeon-hole LDS belief and scripture. The IRR is a proselyting group trying to cover their unacademic tracks with the veneer of scholarship. He pretends to seek correction from Mormons, and while he generally disregards the suggestions this allows him to tell people "I've worked together with Mormons on this, I've asked for corrections, so you know this stuff is solid." Any "assistance" rendered to Bowman is assistance for him to try and destroy any faith in the claims of the LDS Church. Here are some words I use to describe one over the other:

Respectful

Thorough

Sophisticated

Contextual

Challenging

Facile

Haphazard

Narrowing

Sectarian

Rob may be a very nice man, but I find his approach to my faith grinding, unfair, caricaturizing, un-useful, and I don't think it needs to be taken very seriously. A review of Webb's book:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/23/review-stephen-h-webb-jesus-christ-eternal-god/

Edited February 5, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Nothing I said could in any rational way be interpreted as suggesting that I don't think reason matters. I do. In fact, it is reasoning that compels me to prefer my own interpretation of the passages in question over your un-inspired and superficial interpretation.

Let me explain why I said what I did. I had written:

"What matters is not who is doing the interpreting but the reasoning offered in support of the interpretation. Sure, anyone can interpret any text in any way one chooses, but some interpretations are better than others."

To which you replied:

"Better" is in the eye of the beholder.

Here you say that what makes one interpretation "better" than another is "in the eye of the beholder." That expression, of course, is part of the common maxim that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," a statement normally understood to mean that beauty is a subjective perception. Ergo, I concluded that you were saying that what makes one interpretation better than another was subjective. The same is normally what is meant when someone says, as you did in the same post, "To each his own." That is normally understood as expressing the belief that each person's interpretation is valid for him or her as are different subjective tastes.

Now, if you didn't mean to imply that interpretation is a purely subjective matter, wonderful. Happy to hear it. But there was "a rational way" in which your comments could be interpreted as expressing such subjectivism.

[ERayR]

Wade,

You wrote:

Let me explain why I said what I did. I had written:

"What matters is not who is doing the interpreting but the reasoning offered in support of the interpretation. Sure, anyone can interpret any text in any way one chooses, but some interpretations are better than others."

To which you replied:

Here you say that what makes one interpretation "better" than another is "in the eye of the beholder." That expression, of course, is part of the common maxim that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," a statement normally understood to mean that beauty is a subjective perception. Ergo, I concluded that you were saying that what makes one interpretation better than another was subjective. The same is normally what is meant when someone says, as you did in the same post, "To each his own." That is normally understood as expressing the belief that each person's interpretation is valid for him or her as are different subjective tastes.

What makes one interpretation better than another is the prejudices one brings to the interpretation.

[Rob Bowman]

LOAP,

Your unflattering opinion of me is noted, but it is irrelevant to this thread except as an illustration of the prejudice the Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide challenge attempts to overcome. I have been professionally involved in biblical scholarship, theology, and apologetics for 28 years. I have written a dozen books, none of which is about Mormonism, and nearly 60 essays and periodical articles. I have taught undergraduate and graduate courses at secular and evangelical colleges and universities; the subjects of these courses have been in biblical studies, theology, philosophy, world religions, and apologetics. Mormonism rarely came up in these courses. For most of that time I was not employed by a counter-cult organization. Now that I work for IRR, you turn the same anti-anti-Mormon prejudice you have toward all counter-cult ministries toward me. That is hardly surprising. If you won't actually engage the work I do and give it a fair shake, there's nothing I can do to help you see past your animus. But I'll simply direct the challenge to you personally: Read through the whole Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide and see whether in your opinion the work as a whole makes a reasonably good-faith effort to be fair and accurate in its treatment of Mormon beliefs. I'll even email you a copy of the entire work in one PDF document to make your reading of it simpler. That offer goes for anyone else here as well.

[wenglund]

Wade,

You wrote:

Let me explain why I said what I did. I had written:

"What matters is not who is doing the interpreting but the reasoning offered in support of the interpretation. Sure, anyone can interpret any text in any way one chooses, but some interpretations are better than others."

To which you replied:

Here you say that what makes one interpretation "better" than another is "in the eye of the beholder." That expression, of course, is part of the common maxim that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," a statement normally understood to mean that beauty is a subjective perception. Ergo, I concluded that you were saying that what makes one interpretation better than another was subjective. The same is normally what is meant when someone says, as you did in the same post, "To each his own." That is normally understood as expressing the belief that each person's interpretation is valid for him or her as are different subjective tastes.

Now, if you didn't mean to imply that interpretation is a purely subjective matter, wonderful. Happy to hear it. But there was "a rational way" in which your comments could be interpreted as expressing such subjectivism.

You are evidently operating on the false (irrational) assumption that subjectivity and reason are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Quite often, as in this case, the divergent subjective interpretations are based on reason.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 5, 2012 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You wrote:

What makes one interpretation better than another is the prejudices one brings to the interpretation.

Those prejudices certainly can affect interpretation, I'll agree. Let me ask you about the specific issue at hand here. Which of the following prejudice do you think is least likely, all other things being equal, to lead the interpreter to misread a text?

1. The belief that a religious text must agree with the current teaching of a religion with which one passionately agrees

2. The belief that a religious text must disagree with the current teaching of a religion with which one disagrees

3. The belief that a religious text may agree with the current teaching of a religion with which one disagrees, or it may disagree with that current teaching, so that the only way to know is to examine the text on a case-by-case basis

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

Subjectivity and reason are not mutually exclusive. However, subjectivism and reason are.

[mfbukowski]

Talk about annoying.

Yep.

It usta be that people would get on my case for being "mean" to Rob, when all I did was point out what he was really doing here.

Now pretty much everyone sees it the way I did from the beginning, and all I have to do is sit back - mostly because someone else has probably posted what I would have said before I get back to a Rob thread.

So now nearly everyone is against him and he has no defenders left that I can tell.

The best part is that he did that all himself with his winning personality!

[KevinG]

If he were simply trying to observe and understand our doctrines and practices it would be far less annoying than his attempt to jam them into his preconceived notions (fed by years of countercult Mormon Ministries) and them teach them to others as though he were an expert in what we believe.

Has anything of substance been corrected on the IRR website due to this discussion?

[mfbukowski]

Stephen Webb is a remarkably talented theologian, philosopher, and scholar. He pays close attention to historical context and he takes multiple religious traditions seriously as interlocutors on their own terms in his search for truth in Christianity. His is a search for understanding, to draw close to God and knowledge about God. This doesn't mean that Webb simply says Mormons can believe whatever they want, and it doesn't mean he agrees with everything Mormons have offered. To the contrary, he offers suggestions about how he believes LDS theology could be made more consistent with his understanding of scripture. I loved his book and recommend it to any person interested in Christian theology on the Trinity.

By comparison, Bowman is, essentially, a hack trying to pigeon-hole LDS belief and scripture. The IRR is a proselyting group trying to cover their unacademic tracks with the veneer of scholarship. He pretends to seek correction from Mormons, and while he generally disregards the suggestions this allows him to tell people "I've worked together with Mormons on this, I've asked for corrections, so you know this stuff is solid." Any "assistance" rendered to Bowman is assistance for him to try and destroy any faith in the claims of the LDS Church. Here are some words I use to describe one over the other:

Respectful

Thorough

Sophisticated

Contextual

Challenging

Facile

Haphazard

Narrowing

Sectarian

Rob may be a very nice man, but I find his approach to my faith grinding, unfair, caricaturizing, un-useful, and I don't think it needs to be taken very seriously. A review of Webb's book:

http://bycommonconse...st-eternal-god/

Couldn't agree more with every single word. Bowman could learn a lot from Webb if in deed he would be humble enough to be taught. The issue is not agreement but at least genuine understanding- something Bowman will never find on his present course.

Webb is the sort of person one could have a genuine dialogue with and walk away perhaps agreeing to disagree- but in an agreeable way. Rob on the other hand has no control over his pugnacious nature.

[wenglund]

Wade,

Subjectivity and reason are not mutually exclusive. However, subjectivism and reason are.

You are mistaken about this as well, but I won't press you on it since it is tangential to the thread and irrelevant to what I actually said.

To recap, I grant that you can reasonably interpret certain Book of Mormon passages as modalistic, just as it is reasonable for other people to interpret certain Bible passages as modalistic.

However, I personally disagree with those interpretations, and find them to be uninspired and woefully lacking in edifying depth.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

If he were simply trying to observe and understand our doctrines and practices it would be far less annoying than his attempt to jam them into his preconceived notions (fed by years of countercult Mormon Ministries) and them teach them to others as though he were an expert in what we believe.

Has anything of substance been corrected on the IRR website due to this discussion?

It is much easier to tear down than seek genuine understanding- it doesn't require much thought or talent to play a one-note symphony. You learn your ten arguments and then repeat repeat repeat.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

You are mistaken about this as well, but I won't press you on it since it is tangential to the thread and irrelevant to what I actually said.

I'm happy to disagree agreeably on that point and move forward.

To recap, I grant that you can reasonably interpret certain Book of Mormon passages as modalistic, just as it is reasonable for other people to interpret certain Bible passages as modalistic.

I can only think of one Bible text that someone might plausibly interpret as modalistic, Isaiah 9:6, and then only if the interpreter was unfamiliar with the Hebrew text.

However, I personally disagree with those interpretations, and find them to be uninspired and woefully lacking in edifying depth.

Well, I wouldn't expect you to view my interpretations as inspired. I don't even make that claim. Nor am I concerned about being edifying; my concern is to get at the truth. As for depth, so far no one has even tried to offer a rebuttal to my whole argument. Instead people have been picking at one small piece of it and in several instances impugning my motives in the bargain.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

If he were simply trying to observe and understand our doctrines and practices it would be far less annoying than his attempt to jam them into his preconceived notions (fed by years of countercult Mormon Ministries) and them teach them to others as though he were an expert in what we believe.

I don't accept preconceived notions about Mormonism. I have read far more extensively in pro-Mormon apologetic literature than I have the literature critical of Mormonism. Along the way I have challenged some of the common criticisms of Mormonism. For example, as I have pointed out in this very thread, I have not accepted the claim made by some critics that the Book of Mormon teaches modalism. They may be right, but my opinion at present is that the Book of Mormon teaches an unsophisticated and inconsistent trinitarianism that in places uses modalistic explanations. I do my own research and reach my own conclusions.

You asked:

Has anything of substance been corrected on the IRR website due to this discussion?

No clear error of substance on the IRR website has yet been presented, as far as I am concerned. I revised one statement that used the word "corporeal" to overcome the misunderstanding that one Mormon expressed about what that word meant in context. A second criticism was brought up and I answered it, and I haven't heard anything more about it since. The only substantive issue that has continued to be discussed here is this issue about the "Great Spirit" passage in Alma 18. At most this is simply a matter of differing interpretations of one passage. There is no misrepresentation or distortion of Mormon beliefs.

[Loran Blood]

And, just a bit down the page:

Yes, it does. In speaking of the reward awaiting the three Nephite disciples, Jesus said to them,

In LDS theology, "Fulness of joy" is synonymous with exaltation,

or becoming as God is:

Bernard

(please give credit where credit is due)

We can do even better than this, going to the Book of Revelation (which Rob probably thinks was, chronologically, the last book of the NT "canon" written before said "cannon" was "closed":

He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son (Revelation 21:7)

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne (Revelation 3:21).

I'd be interested in seeing Bowmans interpretations of these verses.

[mfbukowski]

Stephen Webb is a remarkably talented theologian, philosopher, and scholar. He pays close attention to historical context and he takes multiple religious traditions seriously as interlocutors on their own terms in his search for truth in Christianity. His is a search for understanding, to draw close to God and knowledge about God. This doesn't mean that Webb simply says Mormons can believe whatever they want, and it doesn't mean he agrees with everything Mormons have offered. To the contrary, he offers suggestions about how he believes LDS theology could be made more consistent with his understanding of scripture. I loved his book and recommend it to any person interested in Christian theology on the Trinity.

By comparison, Bowman is, essentially, a hack trying to pigeon-hole LDS belief and scripture. The IRR is a proselyting group trying to cover their unacademic tracks with the veneer of scholarship. He pretends to seek correction from Mormons, and while he generally disregards the suggestions this allows him to tell people "I've worked together with Mormons on this, I've asked for corrections, so you know this stuff is solid." Any "assistance" rendered to Bowman is assistance for him to try and destroy any faith in the claims of the LDS Church. Here are some words I use to describe one over the other:

Respectful

Thorough

Sophisticated

Contextual

Challenging

Facile

Haphazard

Narrowing

Sectarian

Rob may be a very nice man, but I find his approach to my faith grinding, unfair, caricaturizing, un-useful, and I don't think it needs to be taken very seriously. A review of Webb's book:

http://bycommonconse...st-eternal-god/

Thanks for the review- sounds like I absolutely have to read this book!

Sixty-five bucks? Sounds like it is important enough!

[Calm]

By comparison, Bowman is, essentially, a hack trying to pigeon-hole LDS belief and scripture. The IRR is a proselyting group trying to cover their unacademic tracks with the veneer of scholarship. He pretends to seek correction from Mormons, and while he generally disregards the suggestions this allows him to tell people "I've worked together with Mormons on this, I've asked for corrections, so you know this stuff is solid." Any "assistance" rendered to Bowman is assistance for him to try and destroy any faith in the claims of the LDS Church.

And now Mr. Bowman will place you too (if he hasn't already) within the group of LDS who prefer polemics to spreading the truth, ignoring again that the reason many of us think it best to refrain from giving assistance is a desire for truth to prevail, for truth and claims of truth to be clearly understood by going to actual accurate descriptions rather than having to be dug out from among errors, great and small, leading to greater confusion and misunderstanding rather than knowledge and comprehension of truth claims. Spreading the truth is done much more effectively by using sources less prone to error, no matter how sincere the producers may be.

And what is so silly is that one could avoid error relatively easy by simply focusing on the major differences, linking to an LDS description and then spending the bulk of one's time on what one knows best, one's own truth claims.

[Loran Blood]

Men could not be brought back into God's presence if they were not there before, from

the foundation of the world.

Indeed, hints or shadows of this idea of a "great return" can be found in the NT as it has been transmitted to us. I'm think specifically of Paul's comments in Hebrews 11:13-16:

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.

And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

This all takes me right to the Hymn of the Pearl...strangers in Egypt.

I think the entire "stranger in a strange land" motif has multilayered meaning, its ultimate meaning pointing us back to our source and origin.

Neo-Platonist "Christianity" is a shallow, stagnant pool compared to this fountain of living waters.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Loran Blood

[mfbukowski]

And now Mr. Bowman will place you too (if he hasn't already) within the group of LDS who prefer polemics to spreading the truth, ignoring again that the reason many of us think it best to refrain from giving assistance is a desire for truth to prevail, for truth and claims of truth to be clearly understood by going to actual accurate descriptions rather than having to be dug out from among errors, great and small, leading to greater confusion and misunderstanding rather than knowledge and comprehension of truth claims. Spreading the truth is done much more effectively by using sources less prone to error, no matter how sincere the producers may be.

And what is so silly is that one could avoid error relatively easy by simply focusing on the major differences, linking to an LDS description and then spending the bulk of one's time on what one knows best, one's own truth claims.

That's an excellent point.

But if you link to something that shows what we actually believe, you can't build a strawman

[Calm]

So now nearly everyone is against him.

I don't know about being "against him". More like simply very cautious about his work based on the results of his work so far.

[Calm]

If he were simply trying to observe and understand our doctrines and practices it would be far less annoying than his attempt to jam them into his preconceived notions (fed by years of countercult Mormon Ministries) and them teach them to others as though he were an expert in what we believe.

Once upon a time I was accepting of any effort that appeared to even attempt to engage actual LDS beliefs and culture whether they were successful or not, I delighted in any opportunity to expand on religious understanding, whether mine or someone else's. These days I have seen too many nonLDS do it right even if it takes a struggle at times (from academics all the way through to blue collar workers and even teens who aren't that interested in learning nuances and details, but work enough to get the overall picture) to be satisfied with what amounts to endless labour of trying to convey meaning and value to someone who just goes through the motion of engaging without actually doing so. When so much interesting, beneficial to all involved conversation can be had, I just don't feel any desire to attempt to work with those that are too fond of their errors to see past them to the truth of our beliefs. I prefer the clearsighted critics even if they judge what we understand as truth wrong based on their own belief standards. I learn so much more and generally enjoy the conversation as well, especially if the emphasis for them is sharing their own personal beliefs on a topic.

Edited February 6, 2012 by calmoriah